Jump to content

Death By Dangerous Cycling - New Laws


Featured Posts

When I passed my test [Kinross,  196something] there were no traffic lights, no roundabouts, I grounded the Triumph Herald, when the examiner asked me to make a turn at an acute angle. 

The three point turn failed as the Herald has a turning cirle of 13 feet and the road was about 20 feet.

I had never practiced handsignals. but I had driven a lot of vehicles from the age of 13, mainly tractors, tractors and trailers, cattle lorries, a VW van, a Jag and an MG with twin carbs.

Examiner asked me about braking distances, and if I had ever used hand signals before!

He gave me a pass.

A young relative of mine passed the "test" Her driving is so bad, she has needed a further course of lessons, not sure why she was given a car.  She managed to reverse her new car out of the drive, stopped on the pavement, and left it there. I won't ever be a passenger, she is dangerous. I have no idea how many times she sat a test or who passed her. 

Driving lessons are to train people to pass a test, very little to do with good driving.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/08/2018 at 19:51, pete.i said:

Excellent news. This is a small step towards taming extremely dangerous bikers. Now lets have compulsory insurance and road tax for bikers.

So I  should now pay for the rare dangerous cyclists? What is the insurance for? to pay for a few scratches on your car?

Do you really think that the madcap cyclists will bother about insurance? Will they be jailed for no insurance? they won't pay fines, obviously.

I would pay maybe £200 pa if there were plenty of good safe cycle-ways for recreational cycling, with no cars and no pedestrians. I would not mind a toll.  BUT this does not include the public roads with a notice saying "Cycleway to Glasgow", and when there is a pinch point "cyclists dismount"

There was a rash of "Coastal Path" notices round here a few years ago [since disappeared], pointing people on to country roads with no pavements when the A78 itself ran out of sidewalks. The dedicated walker would have worked out that the A78 is not a good road for walkers. It is not a good idea to encourage walking on roads with no sidewalks.

Not sure if there is still a salaried "Coastal Path Officer" on megabucks.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, LadyG said:

When I passed my test [Kinross,  196something] there were no traffic lights, no roundabouts, I grounded the Triumph Herald, when the examiner asked me to make a turn at an acute angle. 

The three point turn failed as the Herald has a turning cirle of 13 feet and the road was about 20 feet.

I had never practiced handsignals. but I had driven a lot of vehicles from the age of 13, mainly tractors, tractors and trailers, cattle lorries, a VW van, a Jag and an MG with twin carbs.

Examiner asked me about braking distances, and if I had ever used hand signals before!

He gave me a pass.

A young relative of mine passed the "test" Her driving is so bad, she has needed a further course of lessons, not sure why she was given a car.  She managed to reverse her new car out of the drive, stopped on the pavement, and left it there. I won't ever be a passenger, she is dangerous. I have no idea how many times she sat a test or who passed her. 

Driving lessons are to train people to pass a test, very little to do with good driving.

Interesting the differences. When I took my HGV test (as it was then) you were allowed 3 minor errors (and of course no major errors). Before carrying out any manouevre (that includes passing a stationary vehicle, turning left, turning right, overtaking, pretty much anything) you had to look in your offside mirror, nearside mirror and then offside mirror again, an 'error' was if you missed one of these mirror checks. After 20 minutes I had picked up 2 errors and still had over 40 minutes of the test to go. A lot of concentration went into those last 40 minutes since, with the money I'd spent on training, I couldn't afford to fail it would have taken me a year to get together the money for another test, I passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LadyG said:

When I passed my test [Kinross,  196something] there were no traffic lights, no roundabouts, I grounded the Triumph Herald, when the examiner asked me to make a turn at an acute angle. 

The three point turn failed as the Herald has a turning cirle of 13 feet and the road was about 20 feet.

I had never practiced handsignals. but I had driven a lot of vehicles from the age of 13, mainly tractors, tractors and trailers, cattle lorries, a VW van, a Jag and an MG with twin carbs.

Examiner asked me about braking distances, and if I had ever used hand signals before!

He gave me a pass.

A young relative of mine passed the "test" Her driving is so bad, she has needed a further course of lessons, not sure why she was given a car.  She managed to reverse her new car out of the drive, stopped on the pavement, and left it there. I won't ever be a passenger, she is dangerous. I have no idea how many times she sat a test or who passed her. 

Driving lessons are to train people to pass a test, very little to do with good driving.

 

I suspect that if you had taken your test in a larger city, then maybe you wouldn't have passed so easily. That is a major problem with the current system, it is almost impossible to get a consistent standard given the geography of our country.

 

It is up to the motorist, cyclist, pedestrian,  whoever to keep themselves appraised of changes to regulations,  infrastructure  etc. Personally, given the generally low standard of driving, I would support testing every year, because driving is the most dangerous thing most people do and in many professions, ongoing demonstration of capability is now accepted practice.

 

I have driven everything from a rally car, to a 44 tonne articulated LGV,  but I won't get into a willy waving test because variety of vehicles driven is not a measure of drivng competence.

 

I agree with your last point. The driving test, like any other forms of examination simply measures performance at the time.  A longer test with more varied conditions would be better, backed up by periodic re-testing. 

 

21 minutes ago, LadyG said:

So I  should now pay for the rare dangerous cyclists? What is the insurance for? to pay for a few scratches on your car?

Do you really think that the madcap cyclists will bother about insurance? Will they be jailed for no insurance? they won't pay fines, obviously.

I would pay maybe £200 pa if there were good safe cycle-ways with no cars and no pedestrians. This does not include the public roads with a notice saying "cycleway", and when there is a pinch point "cyclists dismount"

 

3rd party insurance for cyclists can be had for a little over £1 per week. 

 

If insurance and registration were compulsory ANPR would catch anyone withput insurance. 

 

https://www.money.co.uk/bicycle-insurance.htm?track=843976&creative=263313981787&network=s&placement=&adpos=1t2&gclid=Cj0KCQjwquTbBRCSARIsADzW88zgSvdjCSlWn3aTuyvRXjD3tAvKZWEFf2tT-ZNzPnbuuMb4MULA8L0aAqu-EALw_wcB

Edited by cuthound
To unmangle the effects of autocorrect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I think I learned a lot from my polis boyfriend, he gave a running commentary, not sure why that approach has not been trialled.

It definately works.

 

I agree, my uncle was a Class 1 Police driver, and I learnt a great deal from him. Observation is the key and a running commentary demonstrates to the examiner what you have (and haven't) seen.

 

Attitude is also important for road driving, but impossible to measure over a short timescale.

Edited by cuthound
To add the last sentance
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I suspect that if you had taken your test in a larger city, then maybe you wouldn't have passed so easily. That is a major problem with the current system, it is almost impossible to get a consistent standard given the geography of our country.

 

It is up to the motorist, cyclist, pedestrian,  whoever to keep themselves appraised of changes to regulations,  infrastructure  etc. Personally, given the generally low standard of driving, I would support testing every year, because driving is the most dangerous thing nostalgia expletives of a d in many professions, ongoing demonstration of capability is now accepted practice.

 

I have driven everything from a rally car, to a 44 tonne articulated LGV,  but I won't get into a willy waving test because variety of vehicles driven is not a measure of driving competence.

I agree with your last point. The driving test, like any other forms of examination simply measures performance at the time.  A longer test with more varied conditions would be better, backed up by periodic re-testing. 

 

 

3rd party insurance for cyclists can be had for a little over £1 per week. 

 

If insurance and registration were compulsory ANPR would catch anyone withput insurance. 

 

https://www.money.co.uk/bicycle-insurance.htm?track=843976&creative=263313981787&network=s&placement=&adpos=1t2&gclid=Cj0KCQjwquTbBRCSARIsADzW88zgSvdjCSlWn3aTuyvRXjD3tAvKZWEFf2tT-ZNzPnbuuMb4MULA8L0aAqu-EALw_wcB

I happened to sit my test in a small country town, but I had driven in Glasgow. 

I had three paid for lessons, and the instructor told me to apply for a test on lesson one. So I assume I was fairly competent. I should have been, I was driving every day.

I can't support a test every year, [its not going to happen], what if my job requires a DL, do I lose my job on the whim of an examiner who has about forty years less accident free driving experience than me?

 

In some parts of the country speeding drivers can opt for a day's lecture on driving, but if this works, I would assume it would be available all over the UK.

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WotEver said:

You obviously have no understanding of how borough planning works. Besides, local government has nothing to do with this thread so I’ll not contribute any further on the subject. 

 

You’re not even consistent. 

You duplicate my post and then tell me that I'm not consistent, how does that work?

 

It is interesting that you chose to bring up the topic of party politics in local government, all that I said was,"....the concept of a cycling lane doesn't seem to have troubled your planners...." no suggestion of what their political affiliation may have been (since it is irrelevant), but then you declare that,".... local government has nothing to do with this thread....." so why did you choose to bring it up if you are going to immediately cut down any discussion of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this lengthy and convoluted posting, one truth has emerged and that is the number of pedestrians injured by cyclists is on the increase. Whilst no accident should be allowed to happen, cyclists who harm pedestrians generally do so on the footpath or towpath. A key aspect is speed. It is of particular concern that not all accidents are reported. Perhaps they should and despite the current parliamentary diversions with Brexit, our legal system should have the powers to correctly penalise cyclist who speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Heartland said:

In this lengthy and convoluted posting, one truth has emerged and that is the number of pedestrians injured by cyclists is on the increase. Whilst no accident should be allowed to happen, cyclists who harm pedestrians generally do so on the footpath or towpath. A key aspect is speed. It is of particular concern that not all accidents are reported. Perhaps they should and despite the current parliamentary diversions with Brexit, our legal system should have the powers to correctly penalise cyclist who speed.

I have to say that not all pedestrians are "innocent", they will walk on designated marked cycle paths, so cyclists either have to ring their bell furiously or move on to the pedestrian designated marked paths, Don't start me about mothers who push buggies in to the road in front of vehicular traffic.

I would not try to cycle fast on mixed pedestrian/cycle ways, they are not suitable for fast cycling.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, furnessvale said:

This scenario is comparable to the many occasions when an HGV has to use the outside lane, even when turning left, in order to complete the turn without clipping the corner due to tail swing.

 

The HGV driver SHOULD clearly indicate left well in advance and any motorist or cyclist undertaking him does so at his peril.

 

George

I would tend to agree with that having carried out the manoeuvre on countless occasions. As the HGV/LGV driver however, when you turn it is not because you think it is clear to do so, it is because you know it is clear to do so, having been checking your nearside rear view mirror (which is significantly larger than any car mirror) repeatedly prior to the turn. I have in the past stopped  before turning because some half wit motorist has come up on my inside on the grounds,"You were in the middle of the road, I thought you were turning right", (despite me having a functional and operating nearside indicator). Stupidity isn't exclusive to any particular road user. As a cyclist I've also (repeatedly) had the car that accelerates hard to get past on my right and then immediately turn left across me into a side street, anticipating the idiot keeps me alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Heartland said:

In this lengthy and convoluted posting, one truth has emerged and that is the number of pedestrians injured by cyclists is on the increase. Whilst no accident should be allowed to happen, cyclists who harm pedestrians generally do so on the footpath or towpath. A key aspect is speed. It is of particular concern that not all accidents are reported. Perhaps they should and despite the current parliamentary diversions with Brexit, our legal system should have the powers to correctly penalise cyclist who speed.

This is repeating as 'fact', something that has not yet been shown to be true. Accidents in general have been dropping over the past few decades and unfortunately, for whatever reason accidents in general have increased in the past couple of years, I'm not speculating as to why, but that it the current fact. If all accidents are going back up again, it is unsurprising that pedestrian/cyclist collisions will rise, the only form of collision which seems to have decreased (again I do not know why) it that involving motorcycles.

 

How exactly are you going to define a cyclist who is speeding? There is no requirement for a functional speedometer on a cycle so they are not subject to speed limits. They can be prosecuted for other offences relating to their manner of cycling but speeding isn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am totally and utterly gob smacked by all this discussion of cycles coming up the inside of a vehicle.

 

When I learned to ride a bike 65+ years ago I was taught by my parents (both keen club cyclists) to never go up the inside of any vehicle.  When we progressed to owning a car and I reached driving age the police traffic cop who taught me to drive said "Undertaking" was illegal and dangerous.

 

What has changed?   Why should anybody, driver or cyclist think going up the inside of a vehicle is sensible or acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am totally and utterly gob smacked by all this discussion of cycles coming up the inside of a vehicle.

 

When I learned to ride a bike 65+ years ago I was taught by my parents (both keen club cyclists) to never go up the inside of any vehicle.  When we progressed to owning a car and I reached driving age the police traffic cop who taught me to drive said "Undertaking" was illegal and dangerous.

 

What has changed?   Why should anybody, driver or cyclist think going up the inside of a vehicle is sensible or acceptable?

Local Authorities have put cycle lanes along the nearside of the road, that is what has changed. Undertaking on a road with traffic moving at normal speed is indeed illegal, if however you are in the centre lane of a motorway when all three lanes are at crawling pace how do you avoid undertaking? By the same token, if there is a long line of stationary traffic and I'm in one of these cycle lanes how do I avoid undertaking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Local Authorities have put cycle lanes along the nearside of the road, that is what has changed. Undertaking on a road with traffic moving at normal speed is indeed illegal, if however you are in the centre lane of a motorway when all three lanes are at crawling pace how do you avoid undertaking? By the same token, if there is a long line of stationary traffic and I'm in one of these cycle lanes how do I avoid undertaking?

I suspect many of the deaths and accidents occur where there is no cycle lane.   Also just because there is a cycle lane it doesn't say you have to/are allowed to undertake.  Obviously crowded motorways ware different but you don't have a mix of cycles (very vulnerable) and cars.

 

Sorry missed the last part.  Slow down or stop.

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/08/2018 at 09:31, roland elsdon said:

I race and train in australia compulsory helmet and rear light . Cannot believe helmetless black dressed riders here. You have to give the 98% of sensible car users the chance to see you. Truck drivers here are also much much more considerate.

but can you explain why it's never the cycling ninjas that get killed (nearly) always the ones lit up like a Christmas tree.

 

some studies have suggested it's easier to see a cyclist in black.

 

I suppose that is backed up by the fact we always see them otherwise how would we know there are cyclists without lights.

 

 

and to other comments, the government want to encourage cycling they will never do anything to put  barriers in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/08/2018 at 11:51, Alan de Enfield said:

You may like to read the Highways Act 1980 for definition of an obstruction of a highway.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/part/IX/crossheading/obstruction-of-highways-and-streets/enacted

 

alternatively :

 

Obstruction : Any unauthorized obstruction that hinders the use of a public highway, such as a fence, gate, or ditch, is illegal and constitutes a Nuisance. ... In a number of jurisdictions the obstruction of highways is a criminal offense.

 

A slow moving vehicle is not an obstruction.

 

The Highway code mentions as follows :

 

The Highway Code asks slow moving vehicles to pull in when safe to allow traffic to pass. Rule 169:“Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. “Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.”

I agree it's not abstruction but I am sure  impeding following traffic is an offence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thebfg said:

I agree it's not abstruction but I am sure  impeding following traffic is an offence 

It is an offence in the USA, but I cannot find it listed as an offence for the UK

 

Under the highways Act 1980 there is an offence of 'obstruction' but that is for 'fixed' articles such as parked cars, builders skips, trees, etc.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/part/IX/crossheading/obstruction-of-highways-and-streets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jerra said:

I suspect many of the deaths and accidents occur where there is no cycle lane.   Also just because there is a cycle lane it doesn't say you have to/are allowed to undertake.  Obviously crowded motorways ware different but you don't have a mix of cycles (very vulnerable) and cars.

 

Sorry missed the last part.  Slow down or stop.

One of the biggest cyclist killers in London has been the cycle 'superhighway' at Bow roundabout ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24942687   ) so yes, these deaths are occurring where there is a cycle lane.

 

The second part of your reply is no answer really is it? If you merely slow down you will still be undertaking and if you stop there is no purpose at all in having a cycle lane if you cannot ride along it when the traffic has stopped. Crowded motorways are no different, if the lane inside of you is travelling faster in slow congested conditions they will be undertaking you, much as a cyclist does in a cycle lane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jerra said:

When I learned to ride a bike 65+ years ago I was taught by my parents (both keen club cyclists) to never go up the inside of any vehicle. 

Yup. 

11 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Local Authorities have put cycle lanes along the nearside of the road, that is what has changed.

Not in any of the places where I see cycles moving to the front of a queue of traffic at traffic lights round here. There ARE some cycle lanes (which, bizarrely, disappear at the approach to roundabouts) but all of the instances I’m referring to (I very nearly wiped out a cyclist myself a few weeks back and yes, I was indicating left and yes, my indicators work) are at lights with no cycle lane. The cyclist either waddles to the front of the queue or if there’s no space hops onto the pavement to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

One of the biggest cyclist killers in London has been the cycle 'superhighway' at Bow roundabout ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24942687   ) so yes, these deaths are occurring where there is a cycle lane.

 

The second part of your reply is no answer really is it? If you merely slow down you will still be undertaking and if you stop there is no purpose at all in having a cycle lane if you cannot ride along it when the traffic has stopped. Crowded motorways are no different, if the lane inside of you is travelling faster in slow congested conditions they will be undertaking you, much as a cyclist does in a cycle lane.

Of course motorways are different.  When you are in a slowly moving lane of traffic and you pass inside another vehicle it isn't at a junction and likely to turn.   If it is leaving the motorway there is a long slipway so no sudden turn in front of you.  Not at all like a small easily missed thing coming up four inside at a speed probably twice yours and intending to go straight on when you intsnend to turn.   Just no comparison.

 

Logic Sanity dictates if there is a vehicle which may just may be turning left when you want to go straight on then you don't go up the inside.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.